Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
India = SICK (Read 1633 times)
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20231
Gordon
Gender: male
India = SICK
Mar 21st, 2019 at 3:36pm
 
NEW DELHI: Two brothers have been arrested in India for allegedly raping their 12-year-old sister who was later beheaded with a sickle, police said Wednesday (Mar 20).

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/indian-girl--12---raped-and-killed--by...
Back to top
 

IBI
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #1 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 4:40pm
 
Imagine if they were allowed to eat cows.....

They would have had organised agriculture, no malnutrition and no God animals walking around, defecating in water sources, destroying pastures, blocking roads, and overgrazing.

Instead, they are Hindus...

And because of this their country and society is ruined.

You can easily look to rural China for proof that the Indian culture is defective.

China has a greater population and also has hundreds of millions of people living in severe poverty outside of the major cities like Beijing and Shanghai. They haven't got plumbing or electricity.

Yet, they aren't in slums and they aren't starving to death and they have dams for water supply. Indians believe the Ganges river is holy and you can't divert it or dam it, just dump the bodies of your dead relatives in it in order to send them to reincarnation. And spread disease.

I wonder if the Indians at the top of the caste system secretly eat beef. It fits with their culture of thriftiness. It fits with their smug and smarmy "you get what you deserve, not what you earn, based on your caste". Hoarding all the food for themselves and letting others starve because karma will fix it later.

Imaging if their culture had salvation through works, not through faith. And cows werent God. And the Ganges was just a river.

They would probably be a much less sh1ttier country with a much less sh1ttier attitude and cultural outlook.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 46596
Gender: male
Re: India = SICK
Reply #2 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 4:56pm
 
There's only room for one 'mass production' race in Asia and that's the YELLOW folks. The WHITE Russians and BLACK Indians are soon gonna have their butts kicked by China.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20231
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: India = SICK
Reply #3 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:19pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 4:40pm:
Imagine if they were allowed to eat cows.....

They would have had organised agriculture, no malnutrition and no God animals walking around, defecating in water sources, destroying pastures, blocking roads, and overgrazing.

Instead, they are Hindus...

And because of this their country and society is ruined.

You can easily look to rural China for proof that the Indian culture is defective.

China has a greater population and also has hundreds of millions of people living in severe poverty outside of the major cities like Beijing and Shanghai. They haven't got plumbing or electricity.

Yet, they aren't in slums and they aren't starving to death and they have dams for water supply. Indians believe the Ganges river is holy and you can't divert it or dam it, just dump the bodies of your dead relatives in it in order to send them to reincarnation. And spread disease.

I wonder if the Indians at the top of the caste system secretly eat beef. It fits with their culture of thriftiness. It fits with their smug and smarmy "you get what you deserve, not what you earn, based on your caste". Hoarding all the food for themselves and letting others starve because karma will fix it later.

Imaging if their culture had salvation through works, not through faith. And cows werent God. And the Ganges was just a river.

They would probably be a much less sh1ttier country with a much less sh1ttier attitude and cultural outlook.


Good post. India just has too many gods and hangups.
Back to top
 

IBI
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: India = SICK
Reply #4 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm
 
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #5 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: India = SICK
Reply #6 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #7 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: India = SICK
Reply #8 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:57pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.


No, that's not what I'm saying. These are facts we're talking about. It's a fact that China has stronger coercive institutions than India, and that these institutions are greatly more centralised.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #9 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:00pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:57pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.


No, that's not what I'm saying. These are facts we're talking about. It's a fact that China has stronger coercive institutions than India, and that these institutions are greatly more centralised.


This is not true.

This is waffle. This is implied knowledge.

You don't have this knowledge. The implication is you know this topic. The facts are you don't.

The facts are India has an unmanageable population due to size and cultural factors.

China has a population more organized because it does not have these cultural factors.

They both have governments. They both have planning agencies. All nations do.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: India = SICK
Reply #10 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:03pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:00pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:57pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.


No, that's not what I'm saying. These are facts we're talking about. It's a fact that China has stronger coercive institutions than India, and that these institutions are greatly more centralised.


This is not true.

This is waffle. This is implied knowledge.

You don't have this knowledge. The implication is you know this topic. The facts are you don't.

The facts are India has an unmanageable population due to size and cultural factors.

China has a population more organized because it does not have these cultural factors.

They both have governments. They both have planning agencies. All nations do.


Cultural doesn't apply on a macro scale. It's institutions that matter. India has always struggled with a centralising authority over the continent. There have been only three powers that have established some form of centralised rule over the Indian continent:

1) Mauryans

2) the Mughals (up until 1707 anyway)

3) the British (who still had to rely on local Princes anyway).

By contrast, China has pretty much been a centralised nation-state for more than 2000 years since Emperor Qin Shi Huang unified China.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #11 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:07pm
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:03pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:00pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:57pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.


No, that's not what I'm saying. These are facts we're talking about. It's a fact that China has stronger coercive institutions than India, and that these institutions are greatly more centralised.


This is not true.

This is waffle. This is implied knowledge.

You don't have this knowledge. The implication is you know this topic. The facts are you don't.

The facts are India has an unmanageable population due to size and cultural factors.

China has a population more organized because it does not have these cultural factors.

They both have governments. They both have planning agencies. All nations do.


Cultural doesn't apply on a macro scale. It's institutions that matter. India has always struggled with a centralising authority over the continent. There have been only three powers that have established some form of centralised rule over the Indian continent:

1) Mauryans

2) the Mughals (up until 1707 anyway)

3) the British (who still had to rely on local Princes anyway).

By contrast, China has pretty much been a centralised nation-state for more than 2000 years since Emperor Qin Shi Huang unified China.


I don't know why are talking about former failed empires right now.

Culture is extremely important on a macro scale.

It is collective consciousness and how a nation functions as a whole. Cultural disharmony leads to instability and potentially civil war.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #12 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:08pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:07pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:03pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:00pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:57pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.


No, that's not what I'm saying. These are facts we're talking about. It's a fact that China has stronger coercive institutions than India, and that these institutions are greatly more centralised.


This is not true.

This is waffle. This is implied knowledge.

You don't have this knowledge. The implication is you know this topic. The facts are you don't.

The facts are India has an unmanageable population due to size and cultural factors.

China has a population more organized because it does not have these cultural factors.

They both have governments. They both have planning agencies. All nations do.


Cultural doesn't apply on a macro scale. It's institutions that matter. India has always struggled with a centralising authority over the continent. There have been only three powers that have established some form of centralised rule over the Indian continent:

1) Mauryans

2) the Mughals (up until 1707 anyway)

3) the British (who still had to rely on local Princes anyway).

By contrast, China has pretty much been a centralised nation-state for more than 2000 years since Emperor Qin Shi Huang unified China.


I don't know why are talking about former failed empires right now.

Culture is extremely important on a macro scale.

It is collective consciousness and how a nation functions as a whole. Cultural disharmony leads to instability and potentially civil war.


China was not unified. It was people stroking their egos. It was not centralised. It was a bunch of guys with swords saying to a bunch of guys with chopsticks that this is our empire.

That is not organised.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: India = SICK
Reply #13 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:09pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:07pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:03pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:00pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:57pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm:
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:46pm:
Auggie wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The key difference between China and India is that China has stronger centralisation and more coercive institutions; whereas India has a problem with unity and centralisation.

It's those coercive institutions that allow China to be more developed.


That's not accurate.

On paper China has a central planning committee.

In reality it has over a billion people and of them, over 500 million are rural.


Yes it is accurate. China has a stronger centralised government. Centralisation is the key to effective organisation of society.

This is logical.


You don't know the subject at all.

This is like saying Australia can defend itself because the Australian military has the word defence in its official title.


No, that's not what I'm saying. These are facts we're talking about. It's a fact that China has stronger coercive institutions than India, and that these institutions are greatly more centralised.


This is not true.

This is waffle. This is implied knowledge.

You don't have this knowledge. The implication is you know this topic. The facts are you don't.

The facts are India has an unmanageable population due to size and cultural factors.

China has a population more organized because it does not have these cultural factors.

They both have governments. They both have planning agencies. All nations do.


Cultural doesn't apply on a macro scale. It's institutions that matter. India has always struggled with a centralising authority over the continent. There have been only three powers that have established some form of centralised rule over the Indian continent:

1) Mauryans

2) the Mughals (up until 1707 anyway)

3) the British (who still had to rely on local Princes anyway).

By contrast, China has pretty much been a centralised nation-state for more than 2000 years since Emperor Qin Shi Huang unified China.


I don't know why are talking about former failed empires right now.

Culture is extremely important on a macro scale.

It is collective consciousness and how a nation functions as a whole. Cultural disharmony leads to instability and potentially civil war.


Because history explains current events.

Do you think that the failure of Aurangzeb's successor to maintain a centralised authority over the Indian subcontinent was due the culture of the Mughals, or because of governing institutions? Never mind that they had managed to exert centralised authority over the Indian subcontinent just decades before Aurangzeb.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: India = SICK
Reply #14 - Mar 21st, 2019 at 6:14pm
 
I think living in a global economy where nations have militaries than can be deployed within 24 hours makes history irrelevant.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print